Skip to main content

View Diary: Mr. Turtle cluelessly clamors for debt limit debate that President Obama says he won't get (213 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This conflict will determine (10+ / 0-)

    Obama's presidency and the fate of our democracy.  If economic terrorists can  obtain tribute in this matter, creating minority rule by House Republicans, we have no democracy.

    The Innauguration and SOTU have to address this core principle.

    If we give in to Republican terorism, America will be defeated.    

    Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

    by TomP on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:42:47 AM PST

    •  We have met the enemy and it is the GOP nt (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Vote4Obamain2012, TomP, TheLizardKing

      As the Elites Come Together to Rise Above to Find a Third Way to do Rude things to the 99%

      by JML9999 on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:46:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think it's wrong to say that Obama (4+ / 0-)

      gave up all his leverage in this deal. I thought that myself initially, but he has at least 2 major speeches to give between now and the next "cliff", plus, I'm guessing, another one of the situation specifically, or perhaps a live news conference, plus likely interviews with major media outlets (I'd love to see him go on Fox, right in the belly of the beast). And I don't believe that Repubs are quite as crazy and stupid as they'd like us to believe. If Obama holds firm--a big if, I know--then we can avoid the worst, and maybe even do some good things, like get Medicare to negotiate drug prices and cut some unnecessary defense spending. We'll almost certainly have to give up something, though, and we need to understand that and decide what that might be.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:58:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You might be right, but even if he did, (5+ / 0-)

        we are here now and the underlying principle of opposing rule by minority terrorist tactics is even greater than and spending or tax issue.  It's one for the history books.  Like Andrew Jackson standing against nullification or Lincoln against succession.  Normalizing the threat to destroy the economy by failing to pass the debt ceiling increase undermines our entire system of government.

        The Rs, with their control of the House, should be able to force a compromise on some issues because of voting, but to dictate terms of surrender based on threats to the economy cannot be normalized.  

        Even the destruction of the economy is not a price too high to pay for preventing this from becoming business as usual.   In other words, refusing to negotiate with terrorists is worth letting them shoot the hostage because the resulting uproar and destruction of the Republcian party will ensure the tactic is retired.  

        I hope the President means what he says and will not negotiate over the debt ceiling.  

        Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

        by TomP on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:03:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There is not a majority in either body of congress (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TomP, Vote4Obamain2012, Aspe4, J M F

          to not raise the debt ceiling or let the government shut down. Not even close. Boehner has got to get control of his caucus and jettison the Hastert Rule permanently and allow majority Dem/minority Repub votes from now on, at least on the really big stuff like this, on the basis of it being more important to do what's best for the country than what a minority of whining teabaggers who've barely been in the house for 2 years want.

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:07:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That would be good. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            J M F, Vote4Obamain2012

            Then they likely will do a deal most progressives will not like but which will not gut programs.   The debt ceiling must be out of it.

            Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

            by TomP on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:09:48 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  We're not going to get any truly progressive (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TomP

              legislation so long as Repubs control the house, so this is the best we can probably hope for for now, preventing the worst and maybe sneaking in a few good things here and there. Which ain't nothing.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:23:03 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  House Speaker is an Interesting Office (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kovie

            In theory the speaker could come from the minority party or the House could elect someone who isn't even in Congress. It seems like Boehner behaves more like the repug majority leader.

            "The problem with posting quotes off the Internet is you never know if they're genuine."--Gen. George Washington at the Battle of Gettysburg, February 30, 1908

            by Aspe4 on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:22:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yep (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Aspe4

              I was just thinking that. The majority leader is Cantor, not Boehner, which is speaker of the entire house, which includes Dems, of whom there will now be around 10 more. Meaning that in theory they only need 20 or so breakaway Repubs to pass or block anything. Of course Dems rarely vote in such unison so we're likely talking 25-30 Repubs, but that's still gettable IMO.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:26:15 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  ALL Repubs, not just teabaggers, call this a (0+ / 0-)

            SPENDING problem, not a REVENUE problem.

            That's the entire party's position.

            Dems won Round 1.

            Repubs are using the FC deal's 46:1 ratio as a basis for massive cuts.

            •  Well, it is, in part, a spending problem (0+ / 0-)

              Too much spending on defense, drugs, unnecessary medical procedures, tests and devices, corporate subsidies and tax breaks, etc.

              But it's obviously also a revenue problem.

              Most of all, though, it's a recession problem.

              Hopefully Obama & Dems can make the public realize that.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 11:54:40 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  He got his revenue...46:1 to be exact. (0+ / 0-)

                That's off the table, as McConnell has stated.

                •  He can state whatever he wants (0+ / 0-)

                  He doesn't control congress or the legislative agenda. This is how he operates, like a good trial lawyer, presenting opinion as fact and hoping that we buy it. I hope that Dems aren't stupid enough to fall for his showmanship.

                  "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                  by kovie on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 12:25:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I believe they're going to use the CBO's 46:1 (0+ / 0-)

                    score to keep stating that revenues have been obtained and that only spending must be addressed.

                    Based on previous hostage negotiations, if I were McConnell, I'd do the same.

                    •  Spending does need to be addressed (0+ / 0-)

                      Specifically the ones I cited. Dems can play this purely on the spending side if they like. He's probably right that revenue is off the table for now. Doesn't mean that spending has to be drastically cut, though, or that it shouldn't be painful for his side. You want to chain CPI? Ok, then no more thoroughbred horse farm subsidies for Kentucky (I'm guessing that they exist).

                      You want to take out one of mine? I take out one of yours, Mitch.

                      How does he spin that without looking like an idiot?

                      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                      by kovie on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 01:05:16 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Well, it depends on your definition of drastic. (0+ / 0-)

                        The FC deal added 4 trillion to the deficit.

                        So, just starting at 4 trillion wouldn't even be a "cut".

                        We'd have to start with 4 trillion to offset the FC deal, then continue with more cuts to actually achieve a "cut".

                        So, an 8 trillion deal would only reduce the deficit by 4 trillion.

                        That's what's scaring me.

                        •  No (0+ / 0-)

                          That $4T number is bogus, a made-up number based on what the sequester would have cut even though it consisted of drastic and haphazard cuts without rhyme or reason, and thus represents no baseline we need taken seriously. It's a political, not a serious economic baseline. No serious economist is calling for this much in deficit reduction right now, which would be disasterous for the still recovering economy. Just because a bunch of reactionaries are trying to destroy the New Deal under the fake guise of deficit reduction doesn't mean that we should accept their dishonest premises. There is no deficit crisis. We don't need to and should not attempt to address the deficit right now, at least not through spending cuts or tax increases, as opposed to through economic stimulus. Rather, any spending cuts and tax increases and reforms should be pursued on their inherent merits and not on any fiscal basis.

                          Of course, that's the ideal. Politics will make it impossible to avoid some talk of and action towards direct deficit reduction. But nowhere near this silly $4T number, because that can't be done directly without recessionary steps such as huge cuts to entitlement programs AND tax increases on the middle class.

                          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                          by kovie on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 03:28:50 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I agree, but that's not what either party is (0+ / 0-)

                            saying.

                            We just increased the deficit by $4T.

                            So, a reduction in the deficit, which is the stated goal, would have to START at $4T in savings.

                            What's critical is ensuring that revenue is part of that, but the FC deal was 46:1 in revenue, so that makes it VERY difficult to try for a 1:1 deal this time.

                          •  They love to talk about cutting the deficit (0+ / 0-)

                            But when it comes down to doing it, through specific spending cuts or tax increases, they suddenly develop amnesia because of the politics. So I'm not terribly worried that we're at serious risk of such cuts. Not gonna happen. They want to LOOK "serious", not actually BE "serious".

                            And really, focusing on cutting the deficit now is the opposite of serious.

                            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                            by kovie on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:02:16 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

    •  Can we please stop with this "terrorist" bullshit? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dizzzave

      It's politics.  It's rough and tumble negotiating.

      If it is too much for your sensitive nature, maybe you shouldn't watch.

      It's like those nature shows on TV.  Politics should come with a disclaimer:

      The following political negotiations contain tactics, hyperbole and outright lies that may not be suitable for the faint of heart. Viewer discretion is advised.
      BTW - Have you labeled President Obama a terrorist for the following statement?? :
      I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they've already racked up
      Seems like a terrorist ultimatum to me..
      •  I disagree. It is economic terrorism. (7+ / 0-)

        They put a gun to the head of our economy to get their way.  Little different from terroism.  

        I will not normalize such tactics as you do.  

        You attitude enables the Republican tactics, just as tradmed does.

        Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

        by TomP on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:07:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Who was the "terrorist" in the tax talks then? (0+ / 0-)

          Obama and the Dem Senate had all the cards in that deal..  and they got what they wanted by holding tax hikes for 98% of Americans over the heads of the GOP.

          Please.. show me the difference...

          And.. my attitude enables those tactics??  Really?   I actually think that old rag we call the Constitution enables it.. but, hey.. that's just me.

        •  No, only terrorism is "terrorism." (0+ / 0-)

          That word means something very specific, which includes an intent to literally kill people. It can't validly be coupled with another word to mean something else.

          It's like when people say "food porn." No. Only porn is porn. It's dumb. Stop it.

          And don't even think for a moment that you possibly despise Republicans more than I do.

          TS

          twitter: @Timeslayer_

          by Timeslayer on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 10:31:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  It is economic terrorism - that is exactly (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TomP, Egalitare, stevemb

        what it is. I agree with TomP.

      •  threatening default (0+ / 0-)

        violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which was written during Reconstruction to prevent just this.

        what would you call elected officials that take deliberate action that is in violation of the Constitution.

        neither side wants default so why exactly is this even a supposed negotiation point?

        mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

        by wewantthetruth on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 10:33:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site